Civil Marriages and Religious Marriages … An Examination of the Concept

E. Comments and cautions

Before turning to the body of the report, the committee makes the following observations and issues the accompanying cautions about its report: 1. Marriage—Until recently the term marriage could be used without qualifying adjectives to describe at one and the same time a legal status recognized by the state and an ecclesiastically approved covenantal relationship. The two concepts were conflated—not surprisingly, since a single ceremony, often presided over by a minister, initiated and solemnized both relationships.

Our report will distinguish between civil marriage and religious marriage because there is increasing awareness of the distinction between these concepts. Some may question whether it is proper to use the term marriage in the context of monogamous, covenanted same-sex relationships. This report will follow Synod 2013’s use of the term same-sex marriage in its mandate to the committee as well as legal usage in Canada and the United States.

CRC — Committee to Provide Pastoral Guidance re Same-sex Marriage
(majority report)

‘When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, ‘it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.’

‘The question is,’ said Alice, ‘whether you can make words mean so many different things.’

‘The question is,’ said Humpty Dumpty, ‘which is to be master — that’s all.’

Lewis Carroll
Alice In Wonderland

1.) Marriage is what God says it is. There is no where in Scripture where we find taught that there are God free zones where man can redefine reality and take up a godlike authority to create via a anthropocentric fiat word.

2.) Hence the artificial and contrived invention of a category designated “civil marriage,” apart from religious premises, is a surd … a no thing.

3.) Keep in mind that where this kind of reasoning lands us is the possibility of all kinds of “civil marriage” which we would be required to accept. Does the State recognize marriage between a Father and his daughter? Then Christians must recognize that in the God absent Civil realm. Does the State recognize marriage between a Farmer and his prize Holstein? Then Christians must recognize that in the God absent civil realm.

4.) What religious authority gives the committee the authority to distinguish between civil marriage and religious marriage? To create such a separate sphere is saturated with religious premises. A “non religious” marriage in a putatively religiously naked civil square is drenched in religious presuppositions and driven by religious considerations. What God, except the God State, authorizes a God free zone?

5.) And yes, all Christians question how the word “Marriage,” which denotes a static meaning of one man and one woman entering a covenantal bond that God has established, can be used instead of one man and one man entering a covenantal bond that God has nowhere established. If the word “Marriage” can be used to mean everything from one man and one woman entering into a covenantal bond that God has established to various and sundry numbers of people having warm fuzzy feelings towards one another wanting a party recognizing their warm fuzzy then the word “Marriage” means nothing.

Author: jetbrane

I am a Pastor of a small Church in Mid-Michigan who delights in my family, my congregation and my calling. I am postmillennial in my eschatology. Paedo-Calvinist Covenantal in my Christianity Reformed in my Soteriology Presuppositional in my apologetics Familialist in my family theology Agrarian in my regional community social order belief Christianity creates culture and so Christendom in my national social order belief Mythic-Poetic / Grammatical Historical in my Hermeneutic Pre-modern, Medieval, & Feudal before Enlightenment, modernity, & postmodern Reconstructionist / Theonomic in my Worldview One part paleo-conservative / one part micro Libertarian in my politics Systematic and Biblical theology need one another but Systematics has pride of place Some of my favorite authors, Augustine, Turretin, Calvin, Tolkien, Chesterton, Nock, Tozer, Dabney, Bavinck, Wodehouse, Rushdoony, Bahnsen, Schaeffer, C. Van Til, H. Van Til, G. H. Clark, C. Dawson, H. Berman, R. Nash, C. G. Singer, R. Kipling, G. North, J. Edwards, S. Foote, F. Hayek, O. Guiness, J. Witte, M. Rothbard, Clyde Wilson, Mencken, Lasch, Postman, Gatto, T. Boston, Thomas Brooks, Terry Brooks, C. Hodge, J. Calhoun, Llyod-Jones, T. Sowell, A. McClaren, M. Muggeridge, C. F. H. Henry, F. Swarz, M. Henry, G. Marten, P. Schaff, T. S. Elliott, K. Van Hoozer, K. Gentry, etc. My passion is to write in such a way that the Lord Christ might be pleased. It is my hope that people will be challenged to reconsider what are considered the givens of the current culture. Your biggest help to me dear reader will be to often remind me that God is Sovereign and that all that is, is because it pleases him.

One thought on “Civil Marriages and Religious Marriages … An Examination of the Concept”

  1. I’ve often remarked about the extent that folks seem to think that the furthest reaches of nuance can change placement of an original thought. In their minds a completely disassociated nuance becomes the new foundation of a definition. They that are frantic in their search for the ‘ahah’ or the ‘gotcha’ have no sight of what is ahead. They’ve only sight for the immediate gratification that satisfies their moment.
    – tkbk –

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *